30 votes

Tesla Free Energy suppressed by govt and corporations in energy business

I watched the first 41 minutes of this film so far:

http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie

I knew Eugene Mallove personally as he used to have a store in Framingham where he sold telescopes etc.

It is no wonder that aside from those of us who know of Ron Paul I still encounter people who have never heard of him at all thanks to the MSM blackout.

I do fear for his life given the threat to the profits of those who are reaping in the interest on the production of Federal Reserve Notes by the Fed which Ron Paul wants to abolish after a thorough audit.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rationalwiki has an

Rationalwiki has an interesting page about Tesla.

Take a class in physics and chemistry

Physics > internet

Gibbs free energy > car running on water

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/gi...

The Source Charge Problem

That’s funny, no where in physics or Chemistry does it explicitly state where the source of the charge of a particle comes from....it is assumed that the charge of the particle is a physical characteristic of the particle, even though it freely emits force upon other particles with charges (coulombs law) inversely increasing the closer they get....the only thing I have to say is that free markets will allow us to become energy independent, not free energy...simply put even if you were to get a potato to generate the same amount of energy as a nuclear reactor, the chances are it will be silenced, one way or the other...

I am not an electronics expert, nor am I even close.

Yes it does

First it should be understood that nature is explained by nature.

Protons, Neutrons and Electrons for example are made up of quarks with different charges. For example The electron, I believe, consists of 3 -1/3-quarks (-1/3-1/3-1/3=-1)

"it is assumed that the charge of the particle is a physical characteristic of the particle, even though it freely emits force upon other particles with charges (coulombs law) inversely increasing the closer they get"
This has no bearing on something being a physical property.The idea of charge is just something we made up to help with counting.

Free markets would not necessarily give rise to energy independence, they would give to rise to more specialization around the globe. It is far more likely that oil rich countries would still be the major energy producers because they could do so much cheaper.

Are quarks particles?

"First it should be understood"
Ok, because I can't understand anything...
"quarks with different charges"
hmmm....sounds like particles with charges...
"no bearing on something being a physical property"
really? who says? Force from a physcial property as in a charge sounds like a vector problem which would give a "bearing"
"idea of charge is just something we"
We? You were around back then?
"made up"
Kind of like the color green...but the color green does not exert force on other colors does it?
Sorry, but it seems as if you made my case for me...
As for your thought processes, you are able to make general observations but unable to put the information together in coherent understanding...you really just need to take that one step further...
Don't get me wrong, nothing is proven, but the "source charge problem" remains to be unsolved...any further disscusion will result in posting the current theory of the source charge problem...(with references)...so keep it up...

I am not an electronics expert, nor am I even close.

These threads are ALWAYS train wrecks!

At first, they attract attention, and then it just gets sad.

I am ending my Part of the thread.

He promised me a water fueled car if I can find one that actually uses water as the fuel. I know where to find him. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=OXctY1K4wko...

Stanley Meyer

Stan Meyer water powered dune buggy
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Video/NewsReport.wmv

Stanley Meyer video; unlike ordinary electrolysis
http://waterpoweredcar.com/equinox3StanleyMeyer.WMV

An old saying goes. "Those who say something can't be done - should stop bothering those who are doing it! The sky is not the limit!

I question Meyers' work/presentations

Competent engineer friends who I trust looked at his system and said they didn't see anything new. I did not see the actual device so can't say. But from the videos and personal contacts with Meyer I'd have to reserve judgement on it.

Stanley Meyer was sued

... and convicted for fraud when his investors and the courts found that his "unlike ordinary electrolysis" process was just plain old electrolysis in every sense of the term. In other words, a hoax. He was ordered to pay $25,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell

Please try again.

A lot of people believe in Stanley Meyer

and saw his dune buggy working. It was not ordinary electrolysis. From the videos it seemed to be high voltage and low amperage; not sure possibly high frequency. Sent you another video in last post about fuel injector system.

Really do want one of these cars and find it hard to believe the Japanese also were fraudulent??? with their water fueled car in 2009 car.

Stanley Meyer's engine was exposed as a fraud

The fact that people continue to erroneously believe that it actually worked is irrelevant. Experts studied the thing and concluded that it was a hoax. It was not deriving any free energy from water.

In fact, before the court case, another engineer and scientist challenged Meyer to demonstrate his machine publicly under controlled conditions. In true hoaxer fashion, Meyer initially agreed and then made excuses to avoid all of these demonstrations.

I will buy you that Japanese car if it actually runs on chemically burning water and no other fuel source. I own the domain greywyvern dot com so you can find my info via WHOIS. You seem to think I am joking about this, but I am entirely serious.

The three people who were so called

experts that destroyed Meyer's reputation are only three among many who say differently. I am cautious of so called experts who are often narrow minded and lacking any kind of imagination.

Japanese car is electric but uses water as the fuel to produce the electricity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBm8ogwnpG0&feature=relmfu

Introducing a new concept that frees people from the need for gasoline would create economic havoc and job/wealth loss. The oil industry and world bank like to buy up the patents and suppress what threatens their profit. Even so the crazy among us will keep trying. Think we need to end this thread. I will remember your promise. I know where to find you. :)

I agree

We need to look for alternate fuel sources to reduce our dependence on oil. However, water is not a fuel source, and every moment you spend pursuing it is a moment less you have to work toward something legitimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car#Genepax_Water...

"The vehicle that Genepax demonstrated to the press in 2008 was a REVAi electric car, manufactured in India and sold in the UK as the G-Wiz."

The car in that video is an electric, and wasn't even running on water.

Take a look at the rest of the stories on that Wikipedia page. Just one fraud after another. That's your water-fuelled car legacy.

Injection Fuel System just for interest

This is not to win the car. Just for interest. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLLOuyOXnw&feature=related

In the video at 2:10

The narrator says: "That means that most of the energy used to drive the piston comes from the fracturing of water into the gas."

I'm sorry, but your friend from the video just said something equivalent to making water flow uphill, or the cream in your coffee miraculously unmixing and leaping back into the carton, or a scrambled egg unscrambling itself and hatching a chicken.

It REQUIRES energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. The pressure of the newly formed gases might be enough to move a piston, but the energy originally came from the energy you used to break apart the water. If you are forming those gases under pressure, like in a compressed piston, it will actually require even MORE energy to perform the electrolysis. THAT increased energy input is what drives the piston, not the magical energy the narrator seems to think comes from the fracturing process itself.

In an ideal closed system the energy input exactly equals energy output. In an open system, you will ALWAYS get less energy output than the amount of energy you input.

So, sorry. You don't win a car. But keep trying. Maybe you'll eventually figure out that it's impossible, maybe not.

Not true

When you burn water in the presence of carbon you get gasoline. Water is the by product. Ignore all that water you see coming out of the exhaust pipes of cars when they first start up, that water is put their by the NWO.

Bravo

I actually thought you were being serious there for about half a minute. LOL.

Dissociating the Water Atom = Fame & Fortune?

There are many people around the world working on dissociating the water atom into its constituents Hydrogen and Oxygen. Should such a process be developed in an efficient manner untold wealth and fame will befall the developer(s) or so they think/wish.

Across the web open-minded inventors and tinkerers are mixing and matching every conceivable (and sometimes inconceivable) methods and devices to achieve what at first appearance is an easily attainable goal. Many of these methods are presented in open diverse discussion forums (and YouTube.com) where they are poked and prodded for any gems of possibilities.

On every forum I've seen this process there is inevitably the troll(s) who believes what s/he learned in high school physics class was the end all and be all of science, physics and dissociating of water. Is it true science did not evolve beyond high school physics? Well, of course not. Science went way beyond DC low voltage and low amperage electrolysis. There are in fact many ways to dissociate the water atom into Hydrogen and Oxygen. These systems of course have different rates of efficiency.

Below are links to some of these processes. The first two links lead to some interesting information. The third link is a wiki page wherein these processes are listed and linked to more data. The links on this wiki page are not open to the public but for subscribers only.

Dissociating Water by Plants
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...

Dissociating Water with Microwave
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...

Part 15 - Dissociating Water
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...

Dissociating Water with Fire
Dissociating Water with X-Rays - Radiolysis
Dissociating Water with Ultrasonic Vibration
Dissociating Water with Alternating Current
Dissociating Water with Vacuum
Dissociating Water with Acoustic Cavitation
Dissociating Water Acoustically

Comon sense

When you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you get water. Now it either takes more energy to split water or it takes more energy to form water by burning hydrogen.

Considering perpetual motion is impossible....... I hope you can put the rest together.

Plants use solar radiation to dissociate water.

Microwaves are converted from electrical energy.

Being relatively efficient and efficient are not the same thing.

Not that details matter here,

Not that details matter here, but you are talking about a water molecule, not an atom.

Sorry, my mistype

You are correct. H and O are released when breaking a molecule.

Research paper May 2012

http://www.alcres.com/docs/alydro-hybrid-electric-vehicle.pdf

Presenting another idea to consider.
Interesting use of aluminum to separate hydrogen from water.

Tesla is certainly interesting

As far as "Water powered cars" using the hydrogen in water to power them. It does take alot of energy to get the hydrogen out of the oxygen. The problem next is storage. You can use solar and wind to get your hydrogen but then you have to store it. Hydrogen takes up alot of space. The tank would need to be huge unless you use hydrides to "compress" it. There is work being done using these hydrides but it is cost prohibitive as of now. May as well use your solar or wind to charge your electric car or battery bank.

Now if someone could find Tesla's journal.....

Actually a small battery current through the water

separates the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas and you use the gas as it is created. Once the car is rolling the alternator generates power for the battery as it does in a gasoline car. Kids make hydrogen in the school chem lab experiments.

Hydrogen-oxygen is more volatile than gasoline and burns more efficiently. There are hydrogen powered cars on the road now. Hydrogen fueled cars are available now, but that means you need a HYDROGEN-gas-station to fill up on hydrogen gas. These stations will eventually replace the gasoline stations. Of course the hydrogen will be produced from water. So why not make your own hydrogen and not pay someone else to make it for you? This is how the JP Morgans make money selling energy. No way they want you making your own hydrogen!

Honda FCX Hydrogen Powered Car - Available Now!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QZLKcGkA-s

Tesla Book I read years ago - Wizard

http://www.amazon.com/Wizard-Times-Nikola-Biography-Genius/d...

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

JP Morgan would not allow Tesla give us free energy

and the big OIL industry will not allow the water fueled car. In fact the web is full of lies and misinformation saying water fueled cars do not work. TROLLS.

This is how a water fueled car works:

Hydrogen is released along with oxygen when a small electrical current from a battery is passed through the water. The gases are collected off the electrodes in the water. Hydrogen is a very volatile substance. Every high school kid has done the experiment of making hydrogen from water and listening for the POP when you hold a match in the test tube opening.

You make the Hydrogen-Oxygen Gas as you drive. Your alternator generates amps to run your stainless steel plate cell under the hood. You make the gas as you drive.

By splitting water by electrolysis and creating hydrogen/oxygen gas, you can replace gasoline. Many patents, inventions have been bought and the project is shelved. Some of the stubborn inventors who don't sell out disappear. It happens in the US, Aus, NZ, UK and India. WHY? Because there is BIG profit in the gasoline business.

Now they want to build "Hydrogen" fuel stations along the road to replace GAS stations. They have to have a way to earn money and taxes from the people. The hydrogen will no doubt come from hydrolysis of water.

JP Morgan would not endorse an energy source that he could not make money from, by charging the people for the energy. Tesla was not allowed to give the people free energy. And so it is to this day.

Oh dear, another scientific

Oh dear, another scientific illiterate. I already responded to the water powered car nonsense in another part of this thread. But I'll do it one more time:

When you burn hydrogen you combine it with oxygen in the air to make water vapor. This is the opposite of the reaction in which water is split by electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen. Burning hydrogen to make water releases energy. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen requires the same amount of energy as the burning releases (it's just the reverse reaction). So *all* of the power created by burning hydrogen is consumed by the electrolysis needed to create the hydrogen. There is no power left over for moving the car. Because of inevitable inefficiencies, you'll actually need somewhat more power to do the electrolysis than you can get by burning the hydrogen.

Everybody who plussed up the preceding post must have flunked basic chemistry.

As a matter of fact I have a degree

in science. You appear to be getting your information from the many Google pages that say "it doesn't work".

Whoop dee do. I have a PhD

Whoop dee do. I have a PhD in a mathematical field. The piece of paper you have hanging on the wall (or in my case, stuffed in a drawer) is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you can make a coherent argument, based on what we actually know about the world. I didn't use any google pages to debunk the water powered car. I used conservation of energy. I explained very clearly why you can't make a car run on water by extracting the hydrogen from the water and then burning it. In your science classes did they explain how to violate conservation of energy?

If this really worked you could get your house off the grid in a month. Just buy two fuel cells.

Fuel cell A is run in reverse. It uses electrical power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Fuel cell B is run forward. It combines the hydrogen and oxygen from fuel cell A into water, generating power.

Feed the water from fuel cell B back into fuel cell A. Power fuel cell A with the electricity generated by fuel cell B.

You now have a fully closed system. It is your belief that fuel cell B generates more power than fuel cell A uses, leading you with excess power with which to run your house. You have a perpetual motion machine.

Go ahead. Build it. Nobody from Exxon is going to blow off your head. But try not to be too disappointed when the whole thing runs down and stops within a few minutes.